Anti-Tesla piece in the Telegraph (UK)

[jwilf]

Don't be fooled - Elon Musk's electric cars aren't about to save the planet

This got me pretty wound up over my breakfast this morning. Full of the usual BS about how EVs are powered by coal, etc. I noticed the weasel words "the electricity powering it is often produced with coal" - no mention of actual stats about what percentage of electricity comes from coal in the UK (as I write it's less than 7%).

The worst bit is he has the audacity to compare the Model S to a diesel Audi - in an article which claims EVs cause more air pollution than fossil cars! It's as if dieselgate never happened. As a London cyclist having to endure air that can only be described as disgusting, I know which I prefer.

I could go on, but it might turn into a rant...

 

[jeffhre]

If Bjorn could write an article that didn't lurch wildly from one contradiction to the next, I may just read the whole thing. I read a few paragraphs and wondered why Bjorn even bothered to write that ridiculous hit piece. Then it occurred to me that his fossil fuel benefactors may like to see a few splashy paragraphs in front of a large group of eyeballs from time to time.

 

[S'toon]

Oh, him again. The guy's a fraud.

Bjorn Lomborg is associate professor of statistics in the Department of Political Science at the University of Aarhus, Denmark; his books have been "hugely influential in providing cover to politicians, climate-change deniers, and corporations that don't want any part of controls on greenhouse emissions".[1]

Lomborg is not a climate scientist or economist and has published little or no peer-reviewed research on environmental or climate policy. His extensive and extensively documented[2],[3] errors and misrepresentations, which are aimed at a lay audience, "follow a general pattern"[2] of minimizing the need to cut carbon emissions.

<snip>

Bjorn Lomborg - SourceWatch

<snip>

The Union of Concerned Scientists also authored a highly critical analysis of Lomborg’s first book. They state: [16]

“Lomborg’s book is seriously flawed and fails to meet basic standards of credible scientific analysis. The authors note how Lomborg consistently misuses, misrepresents or misinterprets data to greatly underestimate rates of species extinction, ignore evidence that billions of people lack access to clean water and sanitation, and minimize the extent and impacts of global warming due to the burning of fossil fuels and other human-caused emissions of heat-trapping gases. Time and again, these experts find that Lomborg’s assertions and analyses are marred by flawed logic, inappropriate use of statistics and hidden value judgments. He uncritically and selectively cites literature—often not peer-reviewed— that supports his assertions, while ignoring or misinterpreting scientific evidence that does not. His consistently flawed use of scientific data is, in Peter Gleick’s words 'unexpected and disturbing in a statistician.'”

Grist magazine also asked eight leading experts to critique the book based on their particular areas of knowledge. Their critical analysis, titled “A Skeptical Look at the Skeptical Environmentalist,” thoroughly discredits many of Lomborg's claims. [17]

Dr. Peter Gleick, a renowned American scientist, wrote another critical review of Lomborg's Skeptical Environmentalist book in the magazine Environment. Dr. Gleick's review, “Is the Skeptic All Wet?” catalogued numerous errors in Lomborg's methods, data and assumptions, particularly focused on water issues.

Affiliations

• The Heartland Institute — “Expert.” [18]
  
  
• Copenhagen Consensus Center — President and Founder. [19]
  
  
• The Sweeney Agency — “Speaker.” [39]
  
  
• Competitive Enterprise Institute — “Recipient of the 2003 Julian L. Simon Memorial Award.” [41]
  
  
• Fraser Institute — “Speaker (2007).” [41]
  
  
• Hoover Institution — Contributing Author to “YOU HAVE TO ADMIT IT'S GETTING BETTER: From Economic Prosperity to Environmental Quality.” [41]
  
  
• Manhattan Institute — “Speaker (2008).” [41]
  
  
• Reason Foundation — Contributing Author and Speaker at Reason's 40th anniversary event. [41]

Bjørn Lomborg

 

[jwilf]

Thanks S'toon. I expected as much.

 

[lklundin]

Full of the usual BS about how EVs are powered by coal, etc.

I like to read opinion pieces (sometimes claiming to be factual) like that one.

It is a good preparation for an actual BEV discussion, where the same (uninformed) objections may appear.

In addition to actual arguments, I also like to describe an argument in favour of a hydrogen-fuelled fuel-cell vehicle as "rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg".

PS. Regarding the coal objection, the electricity production in the Nord Pool area (where Mr. Lomborg lives) is currently less than 15% fossile fuelled, see f.ex.:
The control room
(Under 'Production' click 'Total')

 

[Dutchie]

I am getting so tired of that "running on coal" argument. As if, because electricity is generated by coal we just should do nothing. No, EV's run on ELECTRICITY. Not Coal. How that electricity is generated is not up to the user who uses electricity. It is up to society. How do we as a society want to clean up our mess. If I buy an EV I make a statement that I personally don't want to pollute the environment with my private motor or engine. Besides that we all have a collaborate duty to clean up the mess we all make as a society and that is how we generate Electricty to power our homes, factories, municipalities etc. Do we want it clean or dirty...

 

[RiverBrick]

The anti-Tesla gang is clearly wounded and lashing out based on the number of pathetic pieces that have come out since Thursday.

 

[nativewolf]

Smokestack vs. Tailpipe: How Clean Are Electric Vehicles?

Start with this article. The

Don't be fooled - Elon Musk's electric cars aren't about to save the planet

This got me pretty wound up over my breakfast this morning. Full of the usual BS about how EVs are powered by coal, etc. I noticed the weasel words "the electricity powering it is often produced with coal" - no mention of actual stats about what percentage of electricity comes from coal in the UK (as I write it's less than 7%).

The worst bit is he has the audacity to compare the Model S to a diesel Audi - in an article which claims EVs cause more air pollution than fossil cars! It's as if dieselgate never happened. As a London cyclist having to endure air that can only be described as disgusting, I know which I prefer.

I could go on, but it might turn into a rant...

Start with this:
Smokestack vs. Tailpipe: How Clean Are Electric Vehicles?

Then this interesting economic analysis that is quite flawed but interesting nonetheless. a newer better overview of a modern research (2015 publication).
Here's Where Electric Vehicles Actually Cause More Pollution Than Gas Cars
It uses data that makes poor assumptions about power grid, since green power is doubling every 4 years or so the % of green energy is only going to move things. In any case, it shows why EVs are so good for CA. If you are in the UK then the argument is pretty much a no-brainer. The grid is low co2, point controlled, etc.


Then this Debunking The “Electric Cars Aren’t Greener” Myth

is nice too.

 

[S'toon]

I am getting so tired of that "running on coal" argument. As if, because electricity is generated by coal we just should do nothing. No, EV's run on ELECTRICITY. Not Coal. How that electricity is generated is not up to the user who uses electricity. It is up to society. How do we as a society want to clean up our mess. If I buy an EV I make a statement that I personally don't want to pollute the environment with my private motor or engine. Besides that we all have a collaborate duty to clean up the mess we all make as a society and that is how we generate Electricty to power our homes, factories, municipalities etc. Do we want it clean or dirty...

You're not the only one irritated with that argument. Robert Llewellyn's response to that argument:

 

[nativewolf]

Smokestack vs. Tailpipe: How Clean Are Electric Vehicles?

Start with this article. The


Start with this:
Smokestack vs. Tailpipe: How Clean Are Electric Vehicles?

Then this interesting economic analysis that is quite flawed but interesting nonetheless. a newer better overview of a modern research (2015 publication).
Here's Where Electric Vehicles Actually Cause More Pollution Than Gas Cars
It uses data that makes poor assumptions about power grid, since green power is doubling every 4 years or so the % of green energy is only going to move things. In any case, it shows why EVs are so good for CA. If you are in the UK then the argument is pretty much a no-brainer. The grid is low co2, point controlled, etc.


Then this Debunking The “Electric Cars Aren’t Greener” Myth

is nice too.

Then read this:

US Shale Oil Boom: When It Comes To CO2 Emissions, Not All Crude Oil Is Created Equal

It shows that just as with electricity the source of petrol matters. Hugely important. Unconventional oil can be 10x as bad for the environment, due to the need to flare off gasses or to use energy to refine the oil itself.

The answer is likely, EVs are better period. More studies need to be done to look at the lifecycle to prove that. Getting rid of fossil fuel plants is certainly going to make the EV fleet much cleaner over time. Also, in France and Norway and California the EV fleets are already super super clean.

Hope all this helps

 

[nativewolf]

You're not the only one irritated with that argument. Robert Llewellyn's response to that argument:

Very nice video

 

[HookBill]

Ah, just write this guy off as another "Merchant of Doubt'.

 

[nativewolf]

Know Your Oil: Creating a Global Oil-Climate Index

Reading this in full. Very interesting data.